community2016 – Islam21chttps://www.islam21c.com
Articulating Islam in the 21st CenturyThu, 21 Feb 2019 21:12:34 +0000en-GBhourly1147071544The REAL Christmas Story: How a Prophet was turned into a godhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-real-christmas-story-how-a-prophet-was-turned-into-a-god/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-real-christmas-story-how-a-prophet-was-turned-into-a-god/#commentsTue, 25 Dec 2018 00:00:25 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=24126On December 25th, most Christians around the world will be celebrating Christmas, a day that commemorates the birth of who they believe is their Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. A lot of Muslim commentaries at this time of the year tend to focus on highlighting links between Christmas and the pagan celebrations of old such ...

]]>On December 25th, most Christians around the world will be celebrating Christmas, a day that commemorates the birth of who they believe is their Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. A lot of Muslim commentaries at this time of the year tend to focus on highlighting links between Christmas and the pagan celebrations of old such as Saturnalia. We typically argue on the basis that the date of December 25th, and symbolic practices such as adorning trees with gold and silver, have direct parallels with paganism, and therefore such celebrations should be avoided.

Such arguments are unconvincing for many Christians. Putting to one side the possibility that many of the parallels may be purely coincidental (think about it, most calendar dates will coincide with a pagan festival as there are so many different pagan religions with so many different celebrations dotted throughout the year). Christians even manage to put a positive spin on things, they acknowledge such parallels but retort that the early Church Fathers assimilated many of the pagan practices that were popular with the masses and purified them in the process, taking people away from the worship of the pre-Christian, Graeco-Roman gods to the worship of the God of Abraham. In their minds, this is a good thing.

Even in the Islamic tradition, there are some rituals which have parallels with other religions. The example of Ashura springs to mind:

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to Madinah, he found them fasting on one day, i.e., ‘Ashura’. They said: This is a great day; it is the day on which Allah saved Musa and drowned the people of Pharaoh, so Musa fasted in gratitude to Allah. He (the Prophet) said: “I am closer to Musa than they are.” So he fasted on that day and issued instructions to fast on that day. [1]

In another narration, we find the companions questioning the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the parallels of Ashura with the religions of the People of the Book:

Ibn ‘Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah fasted on the day of ‘Ashura’ and ordered the people to fast on it. The people said, “O Messenger of Allah, it is a day that the Jews and Christians honour.” The Prophet said, “When the following year comes, Allah willing, we shall fast on the ninth and the tenth.” [2]

We can see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t just assimilate this Jewish practice but differentiated it by changing some underlying elements, in this case by adjusting the date.

The point is that simple, ritualistic parallels in and of themselves should not be our focus. Coming back to Christmas, elements such as the date of Christmas are superficial when compared to the actual paganism that lies at the heart of Christian belief. There is a far more powerful strategy that we can adopt in our dawah, and that is showing the links between pagan belief and the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity. So rather than focussing on the when of Christmas, instead try to focus on the what. What is the essence of Christmas? It’s a celebration of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, in the bodily form of Jesus. This shall be the focus for the rest of the article.

TO GRASP THE PRESENT, WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE PAST

In order to understand the influence of paganism on the doctrine of the Trinity, we need to first understand the world into which Christianity was born and developed. The early followers of Jesus were followers of Judaism. In fact, Christianity started out as a movement within Judaism. Like Jews since the time of Moses, these early believers kept the Sabbath, were circumcised and worshiped in the Temple. The only thing that distinguished the early followers of Jesus from any other Jews was their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, that is, the one chosen by God who would redeem the Jewish people. Today, many Christian scholars agree that authors of the New Testament such as Matthew were Jewish believers in Jesus. The influence of Judaism on the New Testament is important because it helps us to correctly understand its message. The New Testament is full of terminology like “son of God.” Such language is interpreted literally by Christians today to mean that Jesus is God the Son, but is this correct? What was the intention behind the Jewish writers of the New Testament when they used such language? What did these terms mean at the time of Jesus?

THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE

When we turn to the Old Testament we find that such language permeates its pages. For example, Moses calls God “Father”: Is this the way you repay the Lord, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you? [Deuteronomy 32:6] Angels are referred to as “sons of God”: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. [Job 1:6]The Old Testament even goes so far as to call Moses a god: “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” [Exodus 7:1] The Israelites are also referred to as “gods”: “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’” [Psalm 82:6]What we can conclude is that such highly exalted language was commonplace and is intended figuratively; it is not a literal indication of divinity.

Even as late as the end of the first century, when the New Testament writers started penning their accounts of the life of Jesus, Jewish people were still using such language figuratively. In a conversation between Jesus and some Jewish teachers of the law, they say to Jesus: “…The only Father we have is God himself.” [John 8:41] The Gospel of Luke calls Adam a son of God when it recounts the lineage of Jesus: “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [Luke 3:38] Jesus even says that anyone who makes peace is a child of God: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matthew 5:9] If the New Testament writers understood such language to be a claim to divinity, then they would have used it exclusively in relation to Jesus. Clearly, it denotes a person that is righteous before God and nothing more.

So we can see that such language, in and of itself, does not denote the divinity of Jesus. So where did such ideas come from?

THE MINDSET OF THE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED THE GOSPEL MESSAGE

The turning point in history came when Christianity ceased being a small movement within Judaism and Gentiles (non-Jews) started to embrace the faith in large numbers. We need to look to the pagan world of the Gentiles in order to understand the mindset of the people that received the New Testament message. Since the time of Alexander the Great, Gentiles had been living in a Hellenistic (Greek) world. Their lands were dominated by Roman armies, with the Roman Empire being the superpower of the world at the time. The Roman Empire itself was heavily influenced by Hellenistic religion, philosophy and culture. Greek gods and goddesses like Zeus, Hermes and Aphrodite, as well as Roman gods and goddesses like Jupiter, Venus and Diana, dominated the landscape. There were temples, priesthoods, and feasts dedicated to the patron god or goddess of a city or region; statues to the deities dotted the forums of the cities. Even rulers themselves were frequently worshipped as gods.

Gentiles from such a polytheistic background would have naturally understood Christian preaching about the “son of God” in light of a Greek or Roman god having been begotten by another. We can see this mindset manifested in the New Testament. In the Book of Acts there is an incident where the Gentile crowds think that Paul is Zeus come among them when he heals a crippled man:

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!”

Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

“Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. [Acts 14:11-15]

Here we see that the Graeco-Roman peoples that Paul and Barnabas were preaching to were in the habit of taking humans for gods. Despite Paul protesting that he was not a god, the people persisted in their belief: “Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.” [Acts 14:18] From this example we can see that according to Christian history, it was a common practice for people to attribute divinity to other humans. In spite of Paul openly denying being a god, the people continued to worship and sacrifice to him. We can conclude that even if Jesus himself rejected being God at that time, the mindset of the people was such that they would still have found a way to deify him.

With this background in mind, it’s easy to see how Judaic phrases like “son of God” took on a different meaning when transported out of their Jewish monotheistic context into pagan Greco-Roman thought. The Trinity doctrine arose neither in a vacuum, nor strictly from the text of Scripture. It was the result of the influence of certain beliefs and attitudes that prevailed in and around the Church after the first century. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world and so the primitive Church had to reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from pagan mythology. In the words of the historian and Anglican bishop John Wand, “Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ” [3]

LINKS TO THE PAGANISM OF OLD

It’s interesting to note that the Greco-Roman religions were filled with tales of gods procreating with human beings and begetting god-men. The belief that God could be incarnate, or that there were sons of God, were common and popular beliefs. For example, the chief god in the Greek pantheon, Zeus, visited the human woman Danae in the form of golden rain and fathered Perseus, a “god-man.” In another tale Zeus is said to have come to the human woman Alcmena, disguised as her husband. Alcmena bore Hercules, another “god-man.” Such tales bear a striking similarity to Trinitarian beliefs of God being begotten as a man. In fact, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr, considered a saint in the Catholic Church, said the following in response to pagan criticisms that Christianity borrowed from their beliefs about the sons of God:

When we say that the Word, who is our teacher, Jesus Christ the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he was crucified and died and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you [pagans] believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Jupiter. [4]

According to ancient Roman myth, Jupiter was the king of all the gods. Here Justin Martyr is telling Roman pagans that what the Christians believe about Jesus being the son of God is nothing different than what they believe about the sons of the god Jupiter. That the Church Fathers’ conception of the Trinity was a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism can be seen in the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth century bishop who is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. He also happens to be one of the great figures in the history of the philosophical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote:

For the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality. [5]

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither purely the polytheism of the Greeks nor purely the monotheism of the Jews, but rather a combination of both.

Even the concept of God-men who were saviours of mankind was by no means exclusive to Jesus. Long before Jesus was born, it was not uncommon for military men and political rulers to be talked about as divine beings. More than that, they were even treated as divine beings: given temples, with priests, who would perform sacrifices in their honour, in the presence of statues of them. In Athens for example, Demetrios Poliorcetes (Demetrios the Conqueror of Cities, 337–283 BCE) was acclaimed as a divine being by hymn-writers because he liberated them from their Macedonian enemies:

How the greatest and dearest of the gods are present in our city! For the circumstances have brought together Demeter and Demetrios; she comes to celebrate the solemn mysteries of the Kore, while he is here full of joy, as befits the god, fair and laughing. His appearance is solemn, his friends all around him and he in their midst, as though they were stars and he the sun. Hail boy of the most powerful god Poseidon and Aphrodite! For other gods are either far away, or they do not have ears, or they do not exist, or do not take any notice of us, but you we can see present here, not made of wood or stone, but real. So we pray to you: first make peace, dearest; for you have the power… [6]

The Athenians gave Demetrios an arrival that was fit for a god, burning incense on altars and making offerings to their new deified king. It must be pointed out that as time passed by, he did some other things that the Athenians did not approve of, and as a consequence they revoked their adoration of him. It seems that in the days before Jesus, divinity could be stripped away from human beings just as easily as it was granted. Perhaps the best known examples of God-men are the divine honours bestowed upon the rulers of the Roman Empire, starting with Julius Caesar. We have an inscription dedicated to him in 49 BCE discovered in the city of Ephesus, which says this about him [7]:

Descendant of Ares and Aphrodite

The God who has become manifest

And universal savior of human life

So Julius Caesar was believed to be God manifest as man, the saviour of mankind. Sound familiar? Now prior to Julius Caesar, rulers in the city of Rome itself were not granted divine honours. But Caesar himself was – before he died, the senate approved the building of a temple for him, a cult statue, and a priest. Soon after his death, his adopted son and heir, Octavian, promoted the idea that at his death, Caesar had been taken up to heaven and been made a god to live with the gods. There was a good reason that Octavian wanted his adopted father to be declared a God. If his father was God, then what does that make him? This deification of Caesar set the precedent for what was to happen with the emperors, beginning with the first of them, Octavian himself, who became “Caesar Augustus” in 29 BCE. There is an inscription that survives from his lifetime found in the city of Halicarnassus (modern Turkey), which calls Augustus [8]:

…The native Zeus

and Savior of the human race

This is yet another example of a divine saviour of mankind. Now Octavian happened to also be the “son of God” by virtue of his divine father Julius Caesar. In fact Octavian became known as ‘Divi filius’ (“Son of the Divine One”). These, of course, are all titles widely used by Christians today to describe Jesus. We must realise that the early Church did not come up with these titles out of the blue, they are all things said of other men before they were said of Jesus. For early Christians, the idea was not that Jesus was the only person who was ever called such things, this is a misconception. The concept of a divine human being who was the saviour of mankind was a sort of template that was applied to people of great power and authority. We’ve seen that the history of paganism is littered with such examples, and Jesus was just another divine saviour in a long list of divine saviours that had preceded him.

HOW ISLAM ELIMINATED IDOLATRY

Pre-Islamic Arabia was a dreadful place to live in. Slavery was an economic institution with male and female slaves being bought and sold like animals. Illiteracy was common among the Arabs, as were alcoholism and adultery. Those with power and money took advantage of the poor by charging extremely high interest on loans. Arabia was a male-dominated society; men could marry any number of women. When a man died, his son “inherited” all his wives except his own mother. Women had virtually no legal status, for example they had no right to possess property and had little to no inheritance rights. Female infanticide was widely practiced with daughters often being buried alive.

It was not only the rights of human beings that were violated, but also the rights of God. The Arabs were a highly idolatrous people. The idolatry of pre-Islamic Arabia seeped into every facet of day-to-day life. Idols adorned their places of worship. Today the Ka’ba, situated in Saudi Arabia and the holiest place of worship for Muslims, contains neither idols nor images. But before Islam, the pagan Arabs housed 360 different idols in the Ka’ba. Idols were their travel partners whenever they set out on a journey, for the Arabs were very superstitious and believed that they would provide protection in a land plagued by highway robbery and kidnapping. They were also the source of their livelihoods, so central was the Ka’ba to idolatry that pagans from all over Arabia would make pilgrimage there.

In just 23 years, Islam managed to completely reform not only the social ills of Arabian society, but also its idolatry, taking people away from the worship of carved images and stones back to the worship of the One true God of Abraham. This is the testimony of Ja’far bin Abi Talib, who was a contemporary of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Here he informed the king of Abyssinia about the condition of his people and the positive change that Islam brought for them:

O King, we were an uncivilised people, worshipping idols, eating carrion, committing abominations, breaking natural ties, treating guests badly, and our strong devoured our weak. Thus we were until God sent us an apostle whose lineage, truth, trustworthiness, and clemency we know. He summoned us to acknowledge God’s unity and to worship Him and to renounce the stones and images which we and our fathers formerly worshipped. He commanded us to speak the truth, be faithful to our engagements, mindful of the ties of kinship and kind hospitality, and to refrain from crimes and bloodshed. He forbade us to commit abominations and to speak lies, and to devour the property of orphans, to vilify chaste women. He commanded us to worship God alone and not associate anything with Him, and he gave us orders about prayer, almsgiving, and fasting. We confessed his truth and believed in him, and we followed him in what he had brought from God, and we worshipped God without associating aught with Him. [9]

Just how did the Qur’an go about winning the hearts and minds of people, completely transforming every level of Arabian society in such a short space of time? The Qur’an takes into account the psychology of its audience, which is demonstrated in its use of language. In defining the relationship between God and mankind, the Qur’an avoids terms like “Father” when referring to God and “sons of God” when referring to human beings. Such language can be easily misunderstood, especially in the minds of those who come from a background of idolatry and are used to interpreting such language literally. There are even those who might take advantage of such ambiguous language in Scripture, by interpreting it in such a way as to try and justify idolatry. The Qur’an warns mankind against using ambiguity as the foundation for our beliefs:

It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you [Prophet]. Some of its verses are definite in meaning – these are the cornerstone of the Scripture – and others are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own [3:7]

The Qur’an confirms that those who believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God are imitating an ancient pagan concept: “The Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God’: they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said.” [9:30] When the Qur’an defines the relationship between God and mankind, it instead uses terms like Creator when referring to God, and we as the creation. Such terms leave no room for confusion and clearly distinguish between what is God and what is not – everything else. Such careful use of language shows the wisdom of the Qur’an’s source and the insight He has into the human condition. Our Creator knows the inner thoughts of man: “We created man – We know what his soul whispers to him: We are closer to him than his jugular vein.” [50:16]

Source: www.islam21c.com

This article will be expanded upon in an upcoming book, “Jesus: Man, Messenger, Messiah”. Published by One Reason.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-real-christmas-story-how-a-prophet-was-turned-into-a-god/feed/924126Son of Mary – Servant of Godhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/son-of-mary-servant-of-god/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/son-of-mary-servant-of-god/#respondTue, 27 Dec 2016 17:47:21 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=24161Justice for Jesus | Part III Click here for Part I | Click here for part II The custom of attributing children or partners to Allāh (God) is not new nor are most of the beliefs and claims of disbelievers. It is striking to see how, despite the varying generations of disbelievers having never met, many ...

The custom of attributing children or partners to Allāh (God) is not new nor are most of the beliefs and claims of disbelievers. It is striking to see how, despite the varying generations of disbelievers having never met, many expressed the same utterance of disbelief in monotheism when addressing their respective Prophets. They either stubbornly wished to continue following the religion of their forefathers, even when its falsehood was apparent to them; insisted the particular Prophet suffered from madness or resorted to extreme threats in aversion to the truth. The Arab polytheists would also regard the angels as daughters of Allāh.

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allāh; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allāh; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allāh destroy them; how they are turned away![1]

This next verse exemplifies how some figures are blindly followed and taken as lords; they make the permissible impermissible for their followers and the impermissible permissible to such an extent that the original and true teachings are completely transformed and lost. A classic example of this can be seen in modern-day Christianity with the likes of Peter and Paul who have become greater points of reference in terms of speech and religious authority than Īsā (Jesus) himself.

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allāh, and (also) the Messiah son of Maryam and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allāh only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).[2]

When Maryam (Mary) asked how she could give birth to a child when nothing had come close to her chastity, the reason is given to her from Allāh (God) that the miraculous birth is sent as a sign to mankind and will occur as whatever He decrees happens.

Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed.[3]

This initial sign was followed with a second one after birth when the people questioned and slandered the chastity of Maryam (Mary). So, Allāh enabled Īsā (Jesus) to defend his mother and refute the corrupt claims by confirming from his cradle that he had been sent as a Messenger from his lord, just like many Messengers before him and like the one who would come after him, Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam).

He (Jesus) said: Surely I am a servant of Allāh; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet.[4]

He goes on to explain what has been ordained by Allāh (God) as a matter of obligation upon the true believers:

And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;[5]

Īsā (Jesus) was a highly-esteemed, pious Prophet like all the others and he belongs to the five best ones sent amongst them.

Such is Īsā son of Maryam; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.[6]

The supreme and sole majesty of Allāh (God) is maligned with attributing a son to Him for Allāh (God) resembles His creation in no way whatsoever. None has a share in His sovereignty and decision and His is the true and only dominion and kingdom. He does what He wills and is not questioned; His alone is glory and praise.

It befits not Allāh that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it “Be,” and it is.[7]

Īsā (Jesus) once again stresses pure monotheism:

And surely Allāh is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.[8]

It is clear right that both Maryam (Mary) and Īsā (Jesus) were very much blessed and protected by Allāh (God). Even before her pregnancy, Maryam (Mary) was granted nutritious fruits and provisions that were not in season, to the surprise of her guardian, Zakariah.

And We made the son of Maryam and his mother a sign, and We gave them a shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs.[9]

The Qur’ān highlights the resentment of the people when a truthful and reliable description is presented of the teachings of Īsā (Jesus).

And when a description of the son of Maryam (Mary) is given, lo! your people raise a clamour thereat.[10]

One of the reasons of his being sent to the Children of Israel was due to their having gone astray after Mūsā (Moses).

He was naught but a servant on whom We bestowed favour, and We made him an example for the children of Israel.[11]

He was sent with a law that abrogated elements of what Mūsā (Moses) had brought by the permission of Allāh(God) just like the sharīah of Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) abrogated past Prophets’ laws as it is the final commandment

And when Īsā came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) Allāh and obey me.[12]

Although some Prophets were sent and past laws were abrogated, the central creed remained and each Prophet called and reminded the people to submit to and worship Allāh (God), alone.

Surely Allāh is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.[13]

Having seen the speech authentically attributed to Īsā (Jesus) and remembering the critical message of monotheism (believing God is one, the All Powerful, without partner), by pondering the purpose of all the other Prophets who taught their nations to worship God alone in total submission,[14] and then looking at the mission of Īsā (Jesus), a man sent by Allāh (God); chosen, blessed and protected like all the other Prophets, are we really suggesting that all other Prophets delivered the message of manifest monotheism and yet Īsā (Jesus) did the complete and utter opposite? Do we claim that he told the people to idolise him and take him as an actual part of, and a partner to, Allāh (one God)?

We must sincerely ask ourselves, is this cherished, crystal clear, non-contradictory choice in believing him and following the path of the Prophets preferable? Or, is polytheism preferable: a contradictory and confusing creed which maligns monotheism with evident man-made insertions, distorting central concepts and degrading the sublime status of the one Lord, creator and God, Allāh?

To conclude, let us turn our attention to few relevant aḥadīth.

Allāh’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, the son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.”[15]

Allāh’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).”[16]

I heard Allāh’s Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the Prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no Prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).”[17]

Allāh’s Apostle said, “Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The Prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.”[18]

Allāh’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allāh (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.”[19] Abū Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness.”[20][21]

Allāh’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’ān and not by the law of Gospel?”[22][23]

The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) said: “There is no Prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (ʿalayhi al-Salām). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islām. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya. Allāh will perish all religions except Islām. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.”[24]

“By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muḥammad, there is no one of this Ummah, Jew or Christian, who hears of me then dies without believing in that with which I have been sent, but he will be one of the people of Hell.”[25]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/son-of-mary-servant-of-god/feed/024161Explaining Isa (‘alayhi al-Salam)https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/explaining-isa-alayhi-al-salam/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/explaining-isa-alayhi-al-salam/#respondSun, 25 Dec 2016 19:50:16 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=24132Justice for Jesus | Part II Click here for Part I | Click here for Part III It is undisputed that Īsā (Jesus) has a very special status granted by Allāh (God). Not only is he a Prophet and Messenger but he is one of the five mighty messengers among Nūḥ (Noah) Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Mūsā (Moses) ...

It is undisputed that Īsā (Jesus) has a very special status granted by Allāh (God). Not only is he a Prophet and Messenger but he is one of the five mighty messengers among Nūḥ (Noah) Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Mūsā (Moses) and the final Prophet and Messenger sent to mankind, Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) (ʿalayhim al-Salām).

Some of the favours Allāh (God) bestowed upon Īsā (Jesus) are mentioned, highlighting how blessed he was as a special figure without the need of being elevated beyond his due. Allāh will say,

“O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favour upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.”[1]

The first of three favours mentioned are of being supported with the Pure Spirit. This refers to the Angel Jirīl (Gabriel) carrying revelation and commands to the Earth. He was sent to assist other Prophets, as well. Then, the miracle that made manifest his status was his being allowed to speak from the cradle. Thirdly, he was granted knowledge of the Torah and Injīl (gospel). A further three miraculous events were then gifted to him: giving life to the clay bird, healing the blind and leper and bringing certain dead individuals back to life. What is important to note is that after each mention of a miracle, Allāh (God) explicitly and emphatically states “with My permission”, explaining how He enabled such feats to happen and thus ridding any possible confusions in creed.

When Allāh sends Prophets to people He bestows favours upon them in various ways. Many a Prophet was given power by way of miraculous happenings so the people would obey him, realise his truthfulness and believe in the message they brought; that there is no God except Allāh (one God). Nūḥ (Noah) built the ark and all on Earth were destroyed except those who were aboard. Ibrāhīm (Abraham) did not burn at all when he was flung into the flaming fire his people prepared for him. Mūsā (Moses) was enabled to turn the stick into a snake in order to show Pharaoh a clear sign that he was sent as a Messenger and Warner from Allāh (God). During the time of Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) his companions witnessed water pouring from his fingers when there was no water available, they ate food which would have ordinarily catered for a few. And yet, with the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) being enabled to bless it, it fed hundreds.

During the time of Īsā (Jesus), advanced knowledge of medicine was esteemed, so Allāh therefore enabled his Prophet Īsā (Jesus) to overshadow their achievements by curing what they could not cure and defying their supposed prowess. Similarly, during the time of Mūsā (Moses), the practice of magic and sorcery was seen as significant in determining social status. When Mūsā (Moses) was enabled to turn the staff into a serpent even the magicians realised this was beyond mere magic and so they prostrated and submitted to Allāh (God). During Muḥammad’s (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) time, mastering the Arabic language and its advanced eloquence of expression was seen as an auspicious accolade. However, when the people heard the Qur’ān they recognised this was something beyond man’s words. They were well-versed in the most eloquent of poetry but, in the Qur’ān, they found something without a single contradictory statement which, from a man, would be impossible especially considering it was revealed as speech and not writing and all humans, were they to speak consistently for twenty three years, at one point or another, are guaranteed to make major mistakes. Yet, incredibly, the Qur’ān stands even today as one book, unchanged and unchallenged in spite of its own challenge to produce something like it. It is the most read book in the world in its original language of Arabic and also the most memorised book in its entirety. The last favour mentioned is the saving of Īsā (Jesus) from the evil attempts to kill and crucify him. Neither plot was successful and he was raised in order to return before the establishment of the final hour.

And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, “Believe in Me and in My messenger Jesus.” They said, “We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allāh].“[2]

This refers to those who were with Īsā (Jesus), aided him, and believed and understood the actual message he was preaching of monotheism. They witnessed miracles including one they asked Īsā (Jesus) to ask Allāh (God); to send down a feast as a sign to them.

[And remember] when the disciples said, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven? [Jesus] said,” Fear Allāh , if you should be believers.”[3]

Īsā (Jesus), knowing the seriousness of the request, urges them to fear Allāh (God). Knowing Allāh(God) is All Able, All Powerful, he asks the miracle of Him after the companions confirm it is to strengthen their faith further.

They said, “We wish to eat from it and let our hearts be reassured and know that you have been truthful to us and be among its witnesses.”[4] He thus supplicated.

Said Jesus, the son of Mary, “O Allāh, our Lord, send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven to be for us a festival for the first of us and the last of us and a sign from You. And provide for us, and You are the best of providers.”[5]

The response received shows the seriousness of the demand which Īsā (Jesus) had anticipated when he told his disciples to fear Allāh. Allāh said,

“Indeed, I will sent it down to you, but whoever disbelieves afterwards from among you – then indeed will I punish him with a punishment by which I have not punished anyone among the worlds.”[6]

After such a clear sign how could they dare and disbelieve? We now know the disciples were ardent believers aware of the punishment they would incur for deserting monotheism for polytheism especially after having witnessed the manifest miracle.

We now turn our focus to a moment of immense magnitude. Allāh says in the Qur’ān,

And [beware the Day] when Allāh will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.[7]

Īsā (Jesus) responds by totally affirming that Allāh (God) has no partner of any sort relative to any attribute. In his defence, Īsā (Jesus) explicitly states being aware and mindful of the penalty of polytheism. He then goes on to say that had he made such a claim Allāh (God), of course, would already know as He is the All Knowing so he merely asks rhetorically before His unrivalled majesty. He also states that, whilst Allāh (God) knows everything about him, he only knows about Allāh (God) that which He has revealed to him, just like all the other Messengers. He emphasises that Allāh (God) alone has complete knowledge of the seen and the unseen, the apparent and the hidden and that Allāh (God) is entirely independent whilst we are entirely dependent upon His aid.

Even the Angels and Prophets stand in awe and fear of the majesty of Allāh (God), the Sublime. Īsā (Jesus) confirms in the following verse how he strictly delivered the message of monotheism entrusted to him by Allāh(God). He will rightly argue that, after he departed the Earth and Allāh (God) raised him to protect from the plots of crucifixion, he was not witness to what his so-called followers did in dividing, distorting and changing the religion and idolising him.

I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.[8]

He affirms he has no authority over those who chose to call him God or the son of God, nor can he benefit them as he knows they are deserving of the punishment due upon them. All he says is,

If You should punish them – indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them – indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.[9]

Allāh (God), with His complete justice, will say,

“This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness.” For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allāh being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment.[10]

Those who believed in the truth of the Messengers that Allāh (God) is One and Alone, and acted according to His clear commands will be rewarded. As for the polytheists who made partners with the sovereignty of Allāh (God), what else other than a lasting, just punishment can they expect? Are those who pray five times a day in submission, every day without fail until they die, and those who repent regularly, fast and give charity to be treated like those who denied their Creator, attributed a share of His power to others and lived life heedless of the apparent and according to their desires? Would anyone just treat the two equally or similarly?

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/explaining-isa-alayhi-al-salam/feed/024132Justice for Jesushttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/justice-for-jesus/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/justice-for-jesus/#commentsSat, 24 Dec 2016 18:18:50 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=24129Justice for Jesus | Part I Click here for Part II | Click here for Part III In the context of mainstream religions in the modern day and, in fact, at all times since his birth, the character of the man named Īsā (in Arabic), Īshoa (in Aramaic), Yīshua (in Hebrew) and Jesus (in English) has constantly ...

In the context of mainstream religions in the modern day and, in fact, at all times since his birth, the character of the man named Īsā (in Arabic), Īshoa (in Aramaic), Yīshua (in Hebrew) and Jesus (in English) has constantly been hailed as a fundamental figure in forming a view of the correct creed.

Controversy has been central to this topic and, for some, there is confusion as to what to believe about him from the most basic and elementary of matters. Was he God? Was he a man? Was he god and man? Was he a spirit? Was he all three: God, man and spirit? Or was he a significant, superior, special man, chosen to deliver the message from Allāh (God) as a prophet like Noah (Nūḥ), Abraham (Ibrāhīm), Moses(Mūsā) and Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) (ʿalayhim al-Salām)?

This series aims to answer the crucial question as to who he was by examining his own reported words. In order to achieve this it is, first and foremost, integral to rely upon the most sound sources.

To start with, it is well known that ethnically Īsā (Jesus) was Jewish. He was born to the one who always guarded her chastity and was a righteous and exemplary servant of Allāh (God), Maryam (Mary). So, needless to say, he never spoke a word of English or ever heard the name Jesus, as he is commonly referred to today. The name Jesus is not a Hebrew term and, therefore, results from various interpretations and translations over time. The closest to the Hebrew Yīshua is the Arabic Īsā with only a superficial difference in pronunciation.

Today there are various versions of the Bible in existence, with each sect or denomination claiming authenticity and divinity to its own. Of interest to the task at hand is one particular version known as the Red Letter Bible which, for ease of reference, has all the words directly attributed to Īsā (Jesus) in the colour red. Shockingly and strikingly, from all the books of testament, when put side by side, less than twenty five pages are in red font. This illustrates how little there appears to be of the direct supposed teachings of such a major man on which to base an entire religion. The rest are the words of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John with additional commentaries by Paul who is regarded by many theologians and historians as the founder of modern day Christianity as, previous to Paul, the gentile (not ethnically Jewish) were not allowed to become members of the religious congregation. This is in addition to the primary problem of authenticity—the authors of the New Testament being anonymous, and agreed amongst Christians not to have even met Jesus.

What we want to know is what Īsā (Jesus) said and not the interpretations and views of others who never actually met him. Moving on from the Bible we examine the Qur’ān. It is a book still preserved in its original Arabic form, attested by the fact that multiple millions of people have memorised the entire book. It being the one agreed version within Islām remains unquestioned. Regardless of continent or country or an individual’s mother tongue, the Qur’ān is still read in the original Arabic and, therefore, any changes or mistakes would be recognised immediately. This method has been maintained from the time of the final messenger Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) up until today. No other book or scripture boasts anywhere near such a rigorous respect and proficient preservation and, as such, it remains the most reliable source for deriving and understanding the true teachings of the one God (Allāh) revealed to all the prophets and messengers.

Its teachings on the topic at hand are far from tangential as it mentions Īsā (Jesus) many more times by name as compared to Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) himself. It also has a key chapter named after his mother: Sūrah Maryam (The Chapter of Mary).

As we begin looking at all the statements in the Qur’ān referring to Īsā (Jesus) we must sincerely be prepared to seek true understanding.

For the purpose of this series, we start with:

Surely the likeness of Īsā (Jesus) is with Allāh as the likeness of Ādam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.[1]

In the sight of Allāh the similitude of Īsā (Jesus) is like that of Ādam. Just like any other matter He decrees, it is a simple case of the command “Be” and it is. It is not something at all difficult and far from doubtful for the One who alone is worthy of worship, the All-Able the All-Powerful, the flawless Shaper who is the Lord of the heavens and earth, everything within them and anything that exists.

This next verse we will highlight clarifies the alleged crucifixion in clear terms. Muslims believe Īsā (Jesus) will return to the Earth before the final hour. In the meantime, he was saved from the plots and taken up to the heavens. He must and will return for many reasons, one of which is that he is yet to die and all humans have to taste death in this earthly life.

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Īsā son of Maryam, the apostle of Allāh; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Īsā) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.[2]

There is much research which shows by way of chronology how the claim of the crucifixion is far from convincing. The Qur’ān is clear in that he was neither killed nor crucified and what the Christians say is speculative at best. It is to satisfy a designed dogma that he took the burden of all sins that this story is propagated and yet nowhere in any authentic text did he make this contradictory claim.

This following verse advises the Jews and Christians by way of admonition against taking the religion to extremes. The Jews failed to accept Īsā (Jesus) saying they only follow Mūsā (Moses) and the Christians, out of supposed love, elevated Jesus to the status of God himself and fell into the same trap as the Jews by rejecting Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) without any proof or sound basis. Muslims, on the other hand, follow the only true way of life ordained by Allāh (God), maintain the middle path and accept, respect and believe in all three of these noble prophets as well as all others.

O followers of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allāh, but (speak) the truth. The Messiah, Īsā son of Maryam is only an apostle of Allāh and His Word which He communicated to Maryam and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allāh and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allāh is only one Allāh; far be it from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allāh is sufficient for a Protector.[3]

This verse also contains another major warning against saying ‘three’ i.e. the Trinity, because it is in complete opposition to monotheism.

Never would the Messiah disdain to be a servant of Allāh, nor would the angels near [to Him]. And whoever disdains His worship and is arrogant – He will gather them to Himself all together.[4]

We see with this verse that to be a pious slave and worshipper of Allāh (God) is the greatest of privileges and to attain such a status is not degrading to anyone as no one stands anywhere near His absolute majesty. Consequently, the most cherished of creation (the Prophets) and, in this case, Īsā (Jesus) are all too aware of this fact as are the angels so they stand ready to glorify without feeling the slightest arrogance or doubt.

This following verse provides a powerful description of the total power of Allāh (God):

They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allāh is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allāh at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allāh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allāh is over all things competent.[5]

The first point to be noted is the question of who could prevent Allāh (God) with His various means of manifest power if everything were to be destroyed right now? We see the extreme examples of His power in earthquakes and how they erase masses in the midst of their oblivious days, as people continue living and denying Allāh (God). They dream, not knowing the Angel of Death waits for no one but the command of Allāh(God). The second point is at the end of the verse in the mention that Allāh (God) creates what or whom He wills. After all, He alone created Ādam with neither mother nor father. So what of Īsā (Jesus) who had a mother? These matters are entirely and exclusively down to the decree of Allāh (God) and He decrees all things with a particular wisdom and purpose without having to be answerable to anyone or anything.

The matter of making and elevating Īsā (Jesus) to a God-status or suggesting he is the son of God is most grave and a manifest opposite to monotheism. These next two verses highlight this:

They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allāh is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allāh – Allāh has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allāh is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.[6]

Īsā (Jesus) instructs, just as each and every other Prophet has done, to worship Allāh alone -“my lord and your lord”. He reminds the people that his privilege over them is his being blessed and chosen with Prophethood to proclaim the oneness of Allāh (God) and the practice of monotheism. Only a few received this grace of Allāh to be the leaders of mankind and yet for some it is not enough that Īsā (Jesus) is a mighty messenger of Allāh (God). They devalue this exclusivity of positions and choose to make him Allāh (God) thereby ridiculing monotheism and erasing his message.

One of the innumerable strengths of the Qur’ān is that Allāh (God) revealed many similitudes and examples to emphatically make the truth apparent without ambiguity. These examples cater for all calibre of recipients on the condition they are sincere in their search.

The Messiah, son of Maryam is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.[7]

Is it not the case that both Īsā (Jesus) and Maryam (Mary) ate food showing, amongst other things, that they were dependant? What is your concept of God? Does He eat food? In Islām, Allāh (God) is self-sufficient, the Absolute – not like humans in any way. In theology, the concept of God is critical and there is no doubt that only Islām satisfies the strict criteria in singling out Allāh (God) alone for worship.

Far from pleasing or honouring Īsā (Jesus) in giving him the title of ‘God’, it is the biggest insult one could call him. He was born a Prophet and Messenger and those who invoke him instead of Allāh (God) have equated him to stone-carved idols and other man-made gods. Despite this, Allāh (God) is aware that Īsā (Jesus) never diverged in delivering the message that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allāh (God) alone. He says in the Qur’ān,

Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dāwūd and Īsā, son of Maryam; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.[8]

It is undisputed that Īsā (Jesus) has a very special status granted by Allāh (God). In the next article we will outline some of the specific favours Allāh (God) bestowed upon Īsā (Jesus), highlighting how blessed he was as a special figure without the need of being elevated beyond his due.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/justice-for-jesus/feed/324129Minaret: £150k | Imam: £15khttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/minaret-150k-imam-15k/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/minaret-150k-imam-15k/#commentsTue, 29 Nov 2016 18:25:54 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23860In a few remarks that garnered much debate, a well-known and respected UK scholar, Sheikh Zahir Mahmood, recently wrote: We have minarets worth £150,000 but only pay £15,000 for the imam. We invest more in structures than in people. We must be the only community with such utter lack of any vision. Nobody was guided ...

]]>In a few remarks that garnered much debate, a well-known and respected UK scholar, Sheikh Zahir Mahmood, recently wrote:

We have minarets worth £150,000 but only pay £15,000 for the imam.

We invest more in structures than in people.

We must be the only community with such utter lack of any vision.

Nobody was guided by a minaret!

The issues raised are three-fold: the physical structures of mosques, the investment into Imāms and community fundraising. This article briefly outlines some of the debate and concerns surrounding these issues and highlights possible avenues for tackling them; so that we are not simply commentators and denigrators but agents of change.

Physical Structures of Mosques

It is true that there are virtues of building and furnishing mosques. First, it constitutes a form of Sadaqah Jariya. Allāh also says,

“The mosques of Allāh shall be maintained only by those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day; perform As-Salāh, and give Zakāh and fear none but Allāh. It is they who are on true guidance.”[1]

Further to this, the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) is reported to have said:

“Whoever builds a mosque, Allāh will build for him something like it in Paradise.”[2]

Facilitating the building of mosques is a worthy endeavour and there is no disputing it. Some would evidently argue that “no one was guided by a minaret”. I would contest that, in quite a literal sense – yes, many people are. Minarets serve the functional purpose of signpost for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike to identify, from afar, that a mosque exists. It is an emblem of the Islamic presence and, quite sentimentally, offers a sense of comfort to Muslims to know that said road or town has a proud, strong community of Muslims.

More practically, the purpose of the minaret is for the adhān to be heard far and wide. Further to this, the ‘towering minaret’ is an identifying marker that allows foreigners in an area to locate a mosque. How many Muslims have been ‘guided’ to a mosque by following a minaret in the skyline? Whether they be in their resident country or abroad. For that matter, how many non-Muslims have done so too? Many. Many have followed the sound of the adhān filling the skies from the minarets, and found themselves at a mosque only to later embrace Islām.

There is far more to a mosque than its minarets, and mosque committees often seek donations to expand their mosque structures in various ways. That is beyond the scope of this article, but the same principle stands. Dedicating funds to the physical structure of a mosque need not be so vilified. If the planned expansion or design of a mosque serves a purpose that will bring tangible benefit to the Muslim community and congregation that is not the same as a merely perfunctory adornment.

Grand Designs

However the problem lies in the pouring of funds into grand designs that serve no purpose. The expansion and renovation of a single grand, intricately designed mosque which houses chandeliers, carved pillars and varnished mahogany banisters has pledged almost £10 million of which £5 million has admirably already been raised by eager Muslim donors, and yet another, smaller, simpler mosque which serves as an Islamic secondary school, provides Arabic classes and other services similar to that which are provided by the larger mosque, is struggling to repay a debt of £100,000.

If we look at the example of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) and his mosque we see how simple in structure it was, so much so that the Sahāba (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhum) even prayed on the earth itself.

Allāh says in the Qur’ān,

“O children of Ādam, take your adornment at every masjid, and eat and drink, but be not excessive. Indeed, He does not love the extravagant.”

In a chapter in his Saḥīḥ entitled “Chapter on the building of mosques”, Bukhāri records:

Abu Sa’eed said: The roof of the mosque – i.e. the mosque of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) – was made of palm branches. ʿUmar (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) ordered that the mosque be rebuilt and he said: Protect the people from rain, but beware of using red or yellow (for adornment) and distracting the people.

In this narration we are reminded that simplicity in the building of a mosque is paramount. It is a place of worship and its design should not be extravagant or distracting, rather it should serve a functional purpose.

Anas (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) said: They build mosques and boast about that, but they do not use them for worship except rarely.

Ibn ʿAbbās said: You are going to adorn (mosques) as the Jews and Christians adorn (their places of worship).”[3]

Ibn ʿAbbās is also narrated to have said: The Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) said: “I have not been commanded to build lofty mosques.”[4]

For all the functionality of a mosque, there is little use in being guided to a mosque if the Imām within its walls is severely ill-equipped for his role. Donating money to build a mosque has become more important than paying for an Imām or contributing to the running of the mosque.

Imāms

Investing in the financial upkeep of an Imām

With the rising suspicion of where our money goes we are less wont to donate to causes we cannot see the physical effects of. We would rather see a mosque built before our eyes, assured that our money was well spent on those bricks and those prayer mats, than imagine our money filling the pockets of an individual. Sadly, this mind-set is, in part, due to a lack of empathy and understanding that our Imāms may be fathers, brothers, husbands or sons who, like any of us, need to earn a living.

In light of Sheikh Haitham’s article released last week exposing the unfortunate scandal of some da’ees charging extortionate rates for their time,[5] I would like to point out that there must be a distinction between one who swoops in for a term and makes off with a pot of gold and the one who toils away daily to support the community. The local Imāms of our mosques are working day in, day out for the Dīn, leading our Ummah and serving as the ‘man on the ground’ for our communities. For most, this occupation is likely their only occupation by which they continue studying, provide for their families, deliver regular and timely sermons, offer counsel to those seeking clarification in matters of the Dīn, mediate in situations of conflict and much more.

We have failed to realise the treasured position of Imāms in our lives and our communities. It is only when we face real-life problems i.e. a divorce or death in the family, financial concerns or a child gone astray, that we rush to our local, knowledgeable Imām in the hopes he imparts some wisdom to help fix our issue. However, if we have not insisted on and invested in the provision of good scholars in our mosques, there will be no good scholar to support us when we need it. It is in our best interest to ensure our Imāms are paid sufficiently for them to maintain their position as a full-time occupation to which they dedicate their knowledge, time, efforts and resources.

Investing in competent Imāms

There is an ‘utter lack of vision’ within the Muslim community for failing to invest in our scholars. We have all heard of “Sheikh-Google” and the rising phenomenon of seeking clarification for matters of the Dīn online. This is dangerously problematic as Muslims are convinced by unreliable sources or are educating themselves in matters which require much attention to context, specific juristic approaches or nuanced discussions.

Though there are merits to the online community there is a decreased value placed on the traditional manner of sitting at the feet of scholars, learning the Dīn in the physical presence of the people of knowledge and treasuring the time and effort our Imāms dedicate to their local communities. In an article entitled “10 Jewels in Seeking Knowledge”, taking a mentor and keeping the company of people of knowledge were highlighted as key in the progression and development of a student. As Ustadh Alamgir Islam is quoted as saying,

Sheikh Zahir’s comments could also be taken to understand that a lack of funding results in poorly qualified, poorly skilled Imāms. If we do have good, educated Imāms, a lack of funding means they are unable to dedicate their entire time to their role as they seek remuneration through other means. It may be that it is impossible to meet with them after Salāh hours because they have booked talks or sessions elsewhere, are off leading Ḥajj or Umrah tours or are attending weddings.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where many do not realise that the purpose of an Imām is more than an individual who leads the prayer. As Imam Shakeel Begg outlines in an article, Imāms are responsible for calling to Islām, counselling, engaging in social work, working towards community cohesion, providing education, offering matrimonial and funeral services, and propagating and explaining the true teachings of Islām in a time when there is an increase in Islamophobia and a greater number of Muslims are misunderstanding and misapplying the religion of Islām.[7]

Imāms are, by definition, the leaders of the Ummah. If they are uneducated in the Dīn, bringing with them cultural baggage that has no basis in Islām yet which they profess as Islamic truth, they can confuse or mislead their congregations. Many mosque committees still insist on enlisting Imāms from abroad who speak little to no English at all and cannot engage or relate to our youth or the diverse Muslim community in the UK. They do not inspire or motivate and have not grasped what it truly means to be an Imām. Some Imāms are completely ignorant or uninterested in contemporary issues that are affecting Muslims today. As such, they are unable to advise, guide or offer solutions to Muslims in how to deal with controversial matters, hostility or other trials they are facing. This results in Muslims seeking clarification, support and guidance in colleagues, peers or unreliable sources which, quite terrifyingly, can often lead our confused brothers, sisters and an entire generation of our youth astray. It is imperative that mosques hire well-educated Imāms who have legitimate Islamic schooling, approved by a sound scholarship. We would not entrust our health to a doctor that was not qualified nor entrust our children to teachers who were not vetted, so how can we entrust our greatest treasure, our Dīn and our identity as Muslims, to be guided by inadequate Imāms.

Imāms are also at the forefront of dialogue with other communities. Schools regularly arrange visits to local places of worship for students and it falls on our Imāms to represent the teachings of Islām; in knowledge and manners. Again, if there are some Imāms who are unfit to be our leaders how can they be the ambassadors of our religion to non-Muslims?

Fundraising

The imbalance in allocation of funds mentioned suggests an imbalance in our priorities. That “we have minarets worth £150,000 but only pay £15,000 for the imam” indicates a problem with where we are directing our funds. Nevertheless, to the average mosque attendee who donates to the mosque, it seems implausible that they stipulate where they wish their donation to be used. In donating to the mosque, brothers and sisters believe they are contributing to the building, upkeep and running of a mosque in its entirety – including the acquisition and maintenance of a competent, intelligent and inspiring Imām.

There is an urgent need for local training schemes to develop the skills and mind-set of our Imāms. It falls, then, on individual mosque committees to, first, provide more information as to the total running cost required for the mosque and the whole of its staff (including the Imām) and, second, allocate the funds they have attained in a more conscientious manner, considering the imperative need for a good scholar as the Imām over the debatable need for intricate design work on the furnishings.

Investing in programmes to nurture scholars

“The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) did not leave behind wealth or commodities but he left behind the knowledge and pristine principles of Islām. He also left behind Companions, men and women who had a deep understanding of these principles and a thorough insight in applying these principles. These men and women were the leaders who took the message of Islām to the world and brought Islām as a solution for humanities ills and problems.”

This is what we need today. We are short of leaders who take the teachings of Islām and apply them to a contemporary context. We place great value on secular academic progression, and yet, we fail to give due importance to nurturing and developing the future scholars of our Ummah. The earlier generations of Muslims were pioneers in all fields. They led discoveries in medicine and astronomy, for example, but they were also jurists, exegetes and callers to Islām. As Muslims we should foster within our homes and our communities a value for scholarship. Organisations such as the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF) exist to achieve precisely this by way of initiatives such as Sabeel, a development programme which aims to develop Muslim brothers and sisters with such knowledge and understanding as makes them leaders well-founded in traditional Islamic principles and able to promote the pristine teachings of Islām.[8]

I have only highlighted some of the issues we face and suggested some ways to move forward in this article. The points mentioned serve only as an outline that requires exploration in much greater depth so that meaningful guidance and solutions can be presented. Doing so was not the aim or scope of this article, but I hope this conversation may be continued to the benefit of our community.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/minaret-150k-imam-15k/feed/1023860The Dangerous Relationship Between Money & Dawahhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/muslim-speakers-dawah-money/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/muslim-speakers-dawah-money/#commentsTue, 22 Nov 2016 18:11:39 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23845All praises be to Allāh, and may peace and blessings be upon His prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). By the grace of Allāh, the following remarks are not indicative of most Du’āt and scholars, but it is nonetheless a growing problem which needs to be nipped in the bud… Introduction I have been contemplating talking about ...

]]>All praises be to Allāh, and may peace and blessings be upon His prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). By the grace of Allāh, the following remarks are not indicative of most Du’āt and scholars, but it is nonetheless a growing problem which needs to be nipped in the bud…

Introduction

I have been contemplating talking about the issue of Muslim speakers charging a lot of money for “Dawah” for a long time. Although I was initially reluctant to speak about it, I came to the decision to do so as the problem is getting no better. I feel that treatment for this problem should be sought and the issue can no longer be taken lightly. The key issue for me is the fact that Muslim speakers are among the carriers of the legacy of our Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). As such, whether they realise it not, they are role models for Muslim communities. Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) says,

“Allāh will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge…”[1]

Likewise His Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) said,

“Scholars are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets bequeath neither dinar nor dirham, rather their inheritance is knowledge, so whoever acquires it has gained a great share.”[2]

Dawah (calling) to Allāh is the noblest activity a person can be involved in. Allāh says in the Quran,

“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allāh and does righteousness and says, ‘Indeed, I am of the Muslims!’?”[3]

This should not be treated as a job otherwise it will lose its spirit and the main factors that instil it with the power of influence: Barakah (divine blessing) and Ikhlās (true sincerity). These are not just two common Islamic words used to describe what is needed for giving simple reminders in Masājid. Rather, they are the fundamental ingredients for any successful Islamic movement that aims to transform complex societies. Hence, preachers, callers to Islām, speakers, students of knowledge and scholars need to build them and maintain them in themselves first, before asking others to have them. No Dawah will flourish and be successful, no matter how “professional looking” it may be, without the blessings of Allāh – which is a reward for the truthfulness of the people behind it. Allāh taught us the supplication of the Prophet Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al-Salām):

“And my success is not but through Allāh. Upon Him I have relied, and to Him I return”.[4]

Allāh also says:

“And if only the people of the cities had believed and feared Allāh, We would have opened upon them blessings from the sky and the earth; but they denied [the messengers], so We seized them for what they were earning.”[5]

The Muslim community should also protect their Imāms, scholars and speakers. Although these remarks might be seen as criticism of Islamic speakers and scholars, they should also serve as a protection for them against their nafs (self; ego) and the temptations of earthly wealth. The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) warned us that there is nothing more fearful and destructive to a person’s Dīn than the fitna (trial) of wealth and fame.

“Two hungry wolves set upon the midst of a flock of sheep are no more destructive to them than a man’s greed for wealth and fame is to his Dīn.’‘[6]

Muslim speakers should acknowledge that the fitna and desire for wealth and money are the second and third biggest temptations of the triangle of temptations: women, wealth and fame. Hence, they should read this article with a positive mind-set while seeking to improve and rectify their shortcomings. To illustrate what we are talking about, what follows are some unfortunate examples of the wrong practices that are becoming more and more common when Dawah organisations invite speakers to deliver Islamic courses or lectures.

It must be stressed, however, that this is not the case for Dawah in general, al-Hamdu lillāh. A great multitude of Imāms, du’āt and scholars continue to uphold the lofty standards set by the example of the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). This is why the rise of this problem is all the more crucial to highlight and nip in the bud before it begins to tarnish the carriers and conveyors of Prophetic guidance.

Real life examples of the problem

– A speaker was invited to a city to attend a conference. During his stay in the city he visited a mosque for a Friday prayer. For whatever reason, the Khatīb of the mosque was not present and the speaker was approached and asked to deliver the khutbah in the mosque in the city in which he was already present. He said he would do so if he were paid an extra £1,000.

– A speaker delivered a lecture at an event. After this he sat amongst the members of the audience. There so happened to be a 10 to 15 minute segment in which a brother was supposed to offer reminders to the audience but he was unable to do so. The organisers asked the speaker to cover these 15 minutes. He requested an extra £200 to step out of his chair and share a reminder with the audience.

– One speaker was invited to speak at an event as it was known he would be travelling nearby on his way back to his home country. The organisers requested he make a stop-over at their event and offered to pay the difference in the journey. The speaker agreed to attend on condition that his entire travel expense be paid for, including the full price of his ticket. He requested a stay at a 5-star hotel as it would be a 12 hour stop over, and he later called to inform the organisers that he would be bringing his wife and required her ticket to be paid for as well.

– An Imām was invited to lead Tarāwīḥ prayers in a mosque in Ramadān. Because his recitation was widely appreciated, the mosque requested he extend his time leading the prayers each night from one hour to an hour and fifteen minutes. For extending his Salah for fifteen minutes, the Imām demanded more money.

– Some speakers even assign their personal assistants to speak on their behalf. They claim they are professionals and hence ask for “professional” contracts between the organisation of the speaker and the organisation inviting the speaker. I was shown a “professional” contract in which a speaker outlined his payment demands and stipulated that if the money was not paid on time a charge of 20% would be added to the fee. Perhaps they thought that charging riba (interest) is part of “professionalism”!

This is becoming ridiculous. The sorts of things some speakers are asking to be paid for or compensated are getting out of hand. The organisations that are inviting them are usually grassroots organisations that depend on donations from the public sphere. These organisations have budgets managed by the penny in order to run their activities and events, and yet, some of our speakers, our shuyūkh and our du’āt are demanding business class flights, specific types of beds, chauffeurs, masseuses and all manner of luxury. A brother in an Islamic organisation once told me that a speaker specifically defined Evian bottled water as the only water he drinks!

– I was once invited to a particular country to take part in a conference for a new organisation. They invited a number of speakers from different countries and they offered all of us business class flights. As this is a far away country, the business class would cost them unbelievable amounts of money. I thought of the poor children who are dying everyday due to hunger across that country and of myself taking a business class flight to that country, or to any other country, for Dawah. I remembered how Sheikh ʿAbdulraḥman al-Sumait (raḥimahu Allāhu), the most active Muslim preacher in that same region, used to travel for over 30 years in many such countries to deliver real Dawah. I also remembered Sheikh Sāliḥ al-Hussayyin, a senior scholar of Saudi Arabia who was also the Chief of the Administration of the Affairs of the Two Holy Mosques. His position and family made it feasible for him to travel in first or business class, and yet, he refused to do so as he was giving Dawah; in fact there were reports that he used to sleep in a masjid instead of in hotels during his travels.

While I thought of this, I was so embarrassed that I could not bring myself to accept the offer to travel in business class for Dawah. When I arrived there, I found that all the other speakers had accepted the offer. No one denied it! I was utterly confused.

I showed my surprise at the offer and the acceptance of the offer despite the financial difficulties this organisation—and in fact its whole country—was going through. Their answer was simply: We never requested it, we just accepted their offer.

After my answer for a question regarding this issue was uploaded online, I received so many messages from many brothers, sisters and organisers who were suffering in silence. They provided detailed examples of speakers’ demands. A brother sent me the following:

“It’s a big crisis! I’ve seen du’āt who asked for £6K per day! One speaker from the U.S. asked for £75K for one weekend. Two speakers wouldn’t pray Tarāwīḥ in Ramaḍān when on tour and, instead, spent their nights playing PlayStation games in their hotel rooms. Some speakers have a list of restaurants they will eat in and refuse to eat anywhere else. Some are driven by brothers for an entire tour but don’t even bother to learn the brother’s name because ‘he’s only a driver’. Some even refuse to give reminders after jamaʿah prayer during Ramaḍān and when they do finally say some words, they repeat the exact same reminder that has been on their YouTube channel for years; nothing new.”

Another brother told me a speaker asked for 50% of the money that was raised during a fundraising event. Another told me about a speaker who was getting £1,500 every day in Ramaḍān for fundraising for different organisations. A fourth brother told me about an organisation that arranged a tour for an Imām leading Tarāwīḥ in Ramaḍān who was charging mosques or halls £5,000 per night. A speaker requested through his “secretary” a First Class ticket for making a journey within Europe, which would not take more than two hours despite the fact that it is four times the price of the Standard class.

Some of these examples are incomprehensible; the most ridiculous one being that the director of an Islamic organisation told me of a speaker who asked for 5 personal assistants to accompany him for his journey to deliver two or three talks in a conference. His justification was,

“We should not accept that actors and footballers are paid more than Islamic preachers.”

It is an unfortunate truth that on many occasions, many speakers from many countries seem to be more keen to capitalise on people’s needs. It is not about £10 or £1,000. The problem is the concept and the attitude some of these speakers have; that they would make inordinate demands to give Dawah, to give reminders to people, to lead Salāh. This is not Dawah, this is a holiday and a business.

Double Standards – Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The matter here is not about whether it is ḥalāl or ḥarām to make money from giving Dawah. One of the many issues we have towards this attitude is the double standards of these speakers who promote one manner of living and yet they take advantage of others to live another lifestyle. As speakers we are quick to quote a number of āyāt on the distractions of the life of this world, those āyāt that confirm that this life is merely an amusement or game.

“Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children – like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from Allāh and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion.”[7]

As speakers we encourage people to be fearful of Allāh so that they may be charitable and not be so indulged in the Dunya. We remind our listeners of the ḥadīth of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) who said, “Is not the world cursed and everything in it? It is so except for the remembrance of Allāh and what facilitates it…”[8] or his (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) advice to fear the Dunya.

“The world is sweet and green (alluring) and verily Allāh is going to install you as vicegerent in it in order to see how you act. So avoid the allurement of women: verily, the first trial for the people of Isrā’īl was caused by women. (And in the ḥadīth transmitted on the authority of Ibn Bashshar the words are:) so that He should see how you act.”[9]

How could I possibly discourage people from being so immersed in the luxury of the Dunya and then be the first one to chase its luxury and decoration?

Requesting travelling expenses or other such necessary expenses is understandable. Even requesting, openly and honestly, that you would appreciate any money the organisation is able to pay is acceptable, although it is not necessarily the best. But, why must it be a First Class flight? Why must it be a 5-star hotel? Why must the room be a particular width and length with a particular window view? We must bring an end to such nonsense and extravagance.

As a courier of the words of Allāh and His Messenger, I should feel embarrassed to ask for luxurious enticements of the Dunya that I have no need for. If we were to tell people who donate their money to our organisations that their money would go to pay for the luxury and ostentation of certain speakers we could be sure they would decline the need to listen to these speakers. Here I ask every single speaker who requests luxury treatment: do you really care for the hundreds of thousands of children who die every day due to a lack of basic necessities? If you are talking about Dawah and caring for people’s religion, then you should ask yourself whether you care for thousands of poor people who leave Islām due to evangelicals taking advantage of their financial needs.

Examples from the life of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam)

In response to what I am sure is the primary ‘reason’ behind these speakers’ demands—that they have families to support—I must ask: Is this lecture you are going to deliver the only source of income you have? And, if it is so, do not make a business out of it. Dawah is not meant to be business or to make money. This leads us to another important point which is the need for Muslims to establish their own institutions that can fund these speakers. It is a call for businessmen to sponsor not only Dawah projects but imāms, scholars and speakers. Until then, speakers should remember that they are the leaders for the Ummah and leaders are required to sacrifice more than the rest of the Ummah. This is how all our leading predecessors lived their lives following the model of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam):

The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) was seen by ʿUmar (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) with dust on his clothes from having slept on the floor. ʿUmar (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) wished to provide the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) with a more comfortable bed and the reply was,

“What have I to gain in this world? The like of this world is as that of a traveller who is travelling in the sun and he sits under a tree momentarily and then gets up and continues on.”[10]

It was narrated that ʿĀ’ishah (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanha) said: The Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) never ate his fill of wheat bread for three days in a row, until he passed away.[11]

She (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanha) also said: We used to look at the new moon, then the new moon, then the new moon, three new moons in two months, and no fire would be lit in the houses of the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). She was asked: What did you live on? She said: The two black ones, dates and water, but the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) had some neighbours from among the Ansār and they had milk-animals; they would send some of their milk to the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) and he would give it to us to drink.[12]

It was narrated from her (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanha) that she said: The Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) died when there was nothing on my shelf that a living being could eat except a handful of barley.[13]

And she (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanha) said: When the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) died, he had not eaten his fill of bread and olive oil twice in one day.[14]

It was narrated that an-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) said: ʿUmar mentioned what people had got of worldly gains and he said: I saw the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) spending the whole day suffering because of hunger, and he could not even find inferior-quality dates with which to fill his stomach.[15]

It was narrated from Anas b. Mālik (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) that the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) never ate soft bread or a roasted sheep until he met Allāh.[16]

It was narrated that Ibn ʿAbbās (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) said: The Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) would remain hungry for several nights in a row, and his family would not be able to find any supper, and most of their bread was barley bread.[17]

It was narrated from Abū Hurayrah (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) that the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) used to tie a stone to his stomach because of hunger.[18]

ʿAmr b. al-Hārith (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu) said: The Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) left nothing behind except his weapon, his white mule and some land that he left behind as a charity.[19]

We could go on and on in describing the life of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) but I hope this will suffice for our speakers, imāms and duʿāt. Unfortunately, some will not be convinced and would still argue that this was the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) and they cannot be like him. They may also say that the context has changed. It is for this reason I am dedicating an entire, and rather lengthy, article to discussing this issue.

Making money from Dawah:

On another note, it should be mentioned that scholars have differed on whether taking money to teach Qur’ān in particular or Islamic knowledge in general is acceptable. The two opinions are:

(i) that it should be taught for free;

(ii) that it is permissible to accept payment for it.

Each side has his own evidence and proofs and hence there is not much point of using these textual evidences themselves to give preference for one opinion over the other. Rather, we should focus on what is agreeable by all or most of the scholars. The speakers, when taking money for delivering lectures or any Islamic activity, should bear in mind some key points:

I. Their intention should not be money, wealth, the Dunya or doing business. Rather, it should be Dawah. Receiving salary or compensation should be, at best, a secondary intention. The best rule to apply here is what Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned regarding taking money to perform Ḥajj. If we make Ḥajj for someone with the intention of making money our Ḥajj will be invalid, however, if we accept money in order to facilitate us making Ḥajj then, inshā’Allāh, we receive the reward of Ḥajj. Similarly, we may take money to be able to give Dawah, but we should not give Dawah in order to take money.

II. Speakers should not take advantage of the situation as it means that they are using Dawah for a personal gain. Furthermore, it is unethical to take financial advantage of situations related to the Dīn. I have seen speakers take advantage while staying in the hotel as it was paid for by the organisers. In a single night, one speaker made a telephone call which cost more than £130. Another speaker was eating and drinking as if he had been starving for a year.

III. In the case of the speaker who does not have a job, then he should deal with Dawah as he would deal with a job, expecting similar payment, contractual agreements, penalties or even compensation. However, some du’āt and speakers have business managers to run the financial issues related to his Dawah. Before agreeing to deliver a lecture, the organisers have to go through a nightmare in negotiating the terms and conditions with personal assistants or business managers. If the speaker is in a difficult financial situation I recommend he make a request of the organisers to be given anything they can afford by way of a gift or help. He should not make it the fee for his talk.

“Whoever makes the Hereafter his goal, Allāh makes his heart rich, and organises his affairs, and the world comes to him whether it wants to or not. And whoever makes the world his goal, Allāh puts his poverty right before his eyes, and disorganises his affairs, and the world does not come to him, except what has been decreed for him.”[20]

IV. Speakers should remember that whatever amount of money they save an organisation will be considered as Sadaqah given by them. When the speaker avoids requesting luxury accommodation, transportation or food, then he is actually saving some money that will later be used for Dawah.

V. Speakers should remember that any behaviour can be given a justification. However, they should remember that they are dealing with Allāh. Allāh is supervising all of our actions.

“Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness, Even if he presents his excuses.”[21]

VI. It is impermissible, in many cases, for Muslim organisations to spend Dawah money on luxuries or what is beyond the need. Examples include business class tickets, expensive hotels, food and transportation or even spending money. The fundamental principle is, Sadaqah money is to be spent according to what it was requested for along with the intention of the giver. The organisation is just an agent to distribute the money on behalf of the giver and hence they do not have the freedom to spend it the way they decide. This is a topic I will elaborate on in further detail in another article, inshāAllāh.

My dear brothers and sisters, we have to remember that Allāh is our Master and our Lord. He owns everything and He controls everything. He turns the heart of people and He aids those who aid His Dīn. He is the one who said,

“O you who have believed, if you support Allāh, He will support you and plant firmly your feet.”[22]

Hence, we should remember that no matter how hard we try to be successful in our Dawah, the first element for success of our Dawah comes from Allāh. He (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) gives success in Dawah to those whom He knows are honest, sincere and truthful about Dawah.

“And Allāh will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allāh is Powerful and Exalted in Might.”[23]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/muslim-speakers-dawah-money/feed/7523845IERA vindicated after three-year long investigation by Charity Commission?https://www.islam21c.com/politics/iera-vindicated-after-three-year-long-investigation-by-charity-commission/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/iera-vindicated-after-three-year-long-investigation-by-charity-commission/#respondSun, 06 Nov 2016 14:10:18 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23696On Friday 4 November 2016 the Charity Commission published its concluding report into the statutory investigation into the Islamic Education & Research Academy (iERA). This investigation began in 2013 as a result of many malicious allegations against iERA from Islamophobic organisations, thinktanks and journalists, which appear now to have been baseless. The Commission states in ...

]]>On Friday 4 November 2016 the Charity Commission published its concluding report into the statutory investigation into the Islamic Education & Research Academy (iERA). This investigation began in 2013 as a result of many malicious allegations against iERA from Islamophobic organisations, thinktanks and journalists, which appear now to have been baseless. The Commission states in its report,[1]

“On 15 March 2013 the Commission opened an assessment case into the charity following a number of adverse media articles regarding an event organised by the charity in March 2013.”

The organisations responsible for such “adverse media articles” were the likes of the “ironically named” Student Rights,[2] the two-man organisation that had been discredited by student unions themselves up and down the country and whose links to the notorious neoconservative think-tank Henry Jackson Society have long been exposed.[3] Also responsible for the initial “adverse media” were the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB), another organisation that has persistently tried to close down Muslim events in order to silence Muslim speakers under various false pretexts, in particular accusing iERA of “extremism”, “hate speech” and even “anti-Semitism”.[4] In 2014 Islam21c published a detailed, forensic exposé highlighting some of the glaring distortions of truth in a sustained effort to paint various Muslim speakers in a report that the CEMB published against iERA entitled ‘Evangelising Hate’.[5]

Although it is highly unfortunate that the Charity Commission—or indeed any sensible adult—took such propaganda and hate-fuelled misinformation seriously enough to lead to an assessment in the first place, the Muslim community nonetheless will welcome its debunking, even if it is a few years too late. However, a spokesperson for iERA has criticised the Commission’s report for not clearing iERA’s name explicitly enough, by saying very little in regards to those initial false allegations:

“It has either ignored or completely brushed over something that has played a huge role in the tarnishing of our reputation. [A]s the regulatory body, it has a father-like responsibility to give the people of Britain confidence in charities.”[6]

The event in March 2013 referred to above was a debate it hosted at University College London, and one of the allegations which triggered the initial suspicion against iERA by the Charity Commission was the false allegation that iERA “enforced segregation” at the event, despite there being video evidence to the contrary![7] Again, it is unfortunate that such baseless allegations which originated from some apparently exasperated fans sore at the outcome of the debate, were taken seriously enough not only to trigger an assessment by the Charity Commission, but also to be uncritically regurgitated again and again by some journalists in the mainstream media, apparently hell-bent on stirring up hysteria against iERA.[8] A spokesperson from the charity told Islam21c of the sustained attack on the reputation of iERA and various Muslim speakers,

“​In the space of 30 months, there have been 28 negative media articles on the mainstream media, namely The Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail.”

The Charity Commission found no evidence of iERA being a “hate”, “anti-Semitic” or “extremist” organisation as per the allegations in the “adverse media articles” spread by CEMB et al. which triggered the Commission’s initial assessment case back in 2013. This is despite the Commission spending considerable attention in their report to the allegations and “complaints” made to them by the CEMB, in the aforementioned infamous report in which they:

“called for the charity to be classified as a hate group and made a number of allegations about individuals, some of whom are or were connected to the charity.”

Nor did the Commission find any evidence of the accusations of iERA being linked to Ifthekar Jaman—who is said to have travelled to Syria to join ISIS—despite the attempted smear by some in the media.[9] The Commission also found no basis for the accusations of “hateful”, “anti-Semitic” or “extremist” views attributed to the Chairman of iERA Abdurraheem Green and Head of Education, Hamza Adreas Tzortzis, again emanating from people with an ideological opposition to the charity—and arguably, Islam.

One would hope that as a result of iERA being vindicated beyond these harmful lies against them, those thinktanks and members of the press who misrepresented the charity and misinformed the public, who have been fanning the flames of hate for three years, would rectify their gross errors and report on the Commission’s findings accurately. However, knowing the nature of the intense, irrational opposition iERA has faced over the years by some of these people, one would be forgiven for not holding one’s breath.

The Charity Commission’s investigation identified genuine shortcomings initially in iERA in terms of its governance and overall management as a charity, and iERA say they have worked together to improve the running of the charity over the last three years. In response to the Commission’s closure of the statutory investigation, IERA’s Vice Chairman/CEO Saqib Sattar said:

“Since the launch of iERA in 2009 the organisation underwent rapid and significant growth as the impact of our work was received positively by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Being a young and ambitious organisation experiencing these ‘growing pains’ we had on occasion not managed to attain the high standards the Commission sets out in our formative years. We are happy to report that since 2013 we have made significant progress in the quality of our governance and administration.

“The charity, as the Commission noted during the investigation wields considerable influence, which we recognise and exercise responsibly. We remain committed to articulating a warm, intelligent and compassionate case for Islam, in an environment of increased hostility and misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims.”

[7] As can be seen from the shots of the audience, men and women are clearly sitting next to each other https://youtu.be/uSwJuOPG4FI. According to attendees, accusations of ‘enforced segregation’ began when a man got up from his seat at the front (where he was already next to women) and deliberately went to try and sit amongst a group of female Muslim friends who complained to one of the organisers. This was then used as a convenient distraction from the actual outcome of the debate in the media, for obvious reasons.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/iera-vindicated-after-three-year-long-investigation-by-charity-commission/feed/023696Reason & Revelation – A False Dichotomyhttps://www.islam21c.com/theology/reason-revelation-a-false-dichotomy/
https://www.islam21c.com/theology/reason-revelation-a-false-dichotomy/#commentsWed, 28 Sep 2016 15:48:50 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23465Removing the Conflict Between Reason & Revelation The theological discussion relating to submission towards the Sacred Texts often sparks a long-standing debate over the possible conflict between what the Sacred Texts say and other influential factors such as preconceived ideas, cultural conditioning, social constructs, base desire and so on. The Sacred Divine Texts came to ...

The theological discussion relating to submission towards the Sacred Texts often sparks a long-standing debate over the possible conflict between what the Sacred Texts say and other influential factors such as preconceived ideas, cultural conditioning, social constructs, base desire and so on.

The Sacred Divine Texts came to enlighten the mind of man and change the course of his life to fall in line with the Will of his Creator and Sustainer. It encapsulates guidance in the most complete and comprehensive sense and thus requires no external sources of influence to help the human mind appreciate and comprehend it. In fact, external influences and preconceived ideas are merely obstacles that the person must seek to overcome in order to benefit fully from the guidance therein. Unreserved submission to the Creator through His Sacred Texts not only makes sense but unlocks the true potential of man to achieve success in the life to come as well as in his worldly life.

This was the founding thought upon which the Early Muslim’s (Salaf) community was built and is the reason why they achieved what they achieved during that era. Later on, groups arose claiming that although unreserved submission ought to be shown to the Divine Texts, there are some instances where a reference to external sources of non-Divine knowledge may be required in order to properly interpret the Text, especially in cases where there is a perceived conflict. This became the precursor idea which led to the formulation of the false dichotomy which states that a conflict between reason and revelation can exist. Each of the various groups that held this to be true then went their own way in dealing with these supposed conflicts.

It was the scholars of speculative theology (Mutakallimūn) who were the first to construct this false dichotomy between reason and revelation. The very notion of a conflict or polarity between human intellect and revelation did not exist in the era of the Early Muslims (Salaf). Human reasoning and intellect were always perceived as being in harmony with the Sacred Texts for both, in reality, come from the One Creator, Lord of both intellect and scripture. If Divine Revelation were to contravene God-given intellect it would be a logical fallacy as both come from the same source.

From another perspective, the Revelation that Allāh sent down can only serve as a message to mankind if their intellects understand it. Without the obvious element of human intellect being a receptacle to Revelation, Revelation would lose all meaning and be similar to a message secured with an unbreakable code. Therefore, the words and expressions that make up Revelation are Divine and the meanings behind those words and expression are also Divine. These particular meanings, as intended by Allāh, are discernible to man due primarily to his intellectual grasp of language and its universal dictates. It is upon the ability to understand and comprehend the message within Revelation that responsibility and accountability before Allāh (Taklīf) is established. This is the reason why those persons who cannot understand the Sacred Texts, such as the senile and the minor, are not deemed to be morally responsible before Allāh.

With these fundamentals in mind, the relationship between Revelation and intellect can be better understood. As for the Revelation (Naql), its words and expressions can convey a variety of meanings such as:

1) A clear and decisive (Qat‘ī) meaning.

2) An obvious and apparent (Dhāhir) meaning.

3) A predominant (Rājih) meaning, though another less probable meaning is also possible.

4) A possible (Marjūh) meaning that is weak and unlikely to be accurate.

Anything outside of these four categories would be deemed as fanciful interpretation and becomes a claim that ascribes meanings to Divine words or expression that in reality is not there. Though this interpretation or understanding is alien to the Sacred Texts it may make sense to the intellect of the one ascribing it; however, simply because such interpretation makes sense it cannot therefore be forcefully read into the Text. The relationship in question is thus more accurately understood to be between sound interpretation and preconceived paradigms of textual hermeneutics, as it is to do with a conflict between reason and revelation.

To explain the two entities, reason and revelation, in a more rudimentary sense, reason will never find a conflict with simple truths such as the whole always being greater than the part. This is the intuitive nature of reason given by God to human beings. Moving then to the matter of the revelation; words or expression found in the Sacred Texts have their correctly understood meaning. Human reason and the correctly understood meaning(s) of Sacred Texts will always come together in harmony without conflict. The problem arises when either reason becomes tainted with preconceived ideas or desires, or when words and expressions found in the Sacred Texts are assigned inaccurate meaning(s). The possibilities are therefore as follows:

1) Reason and correct meaning(s). No contradiction or conflict arises here, regardless of which type of meaning is being referred to.

2) Reason and incorrect meaning(s). Conflict does arise here, when for example the Mu’tazilites claim that the words of Allāh: “And construct the ship under Our Eyes (bi-a’yuninā)” according to the apparent (Dhāhir) meaning would mean Nūh made the boat with the eyes of Allāh. However, this is simply incorrect from a purely linguistic perspective as the apparent meaning is a metaphorical one and not the one they claim. Hence, there is no need to reinterpret this beautiful expression as the apparent is clear.

3) Incorrect reasoning and correct meaning(s). Conflict does arise here when, for example, the Quraysh rejected the Prophethood of Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) by saying: “Why was an Angel not sent down?” According to their reasoning, a Prophet could not be a human but had to be an Angel, yet Allāh condemned them for using false reasoning saying: “But if We had sent down an Angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved.” In similar vein, the Mu’tazilites claimed that the Prophet’s saying that Allāh is fī al-Samā (above the heavens), cannot be taken to mean what is apparent as that would imply that Allāh is contained within His creation. Their reasoning is at fault here as it tells them that assigning a direction (Jiha) to God is to anthropomorphise, as it necessitates that He is within the universe (Makān).

The phenomenon of false, mystical and even fanciful interpretation of revealed scriptures is not something unique to the final revelation sent to the Prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). Various modes of interpretation have been employed with the Bible in Judaism and Christianity. However, a survey of the various instances wherein the scholars of speculative theology (Mutakallimūn) adopted a false mode of interpretation, such as words and expressions relating to God’s Attributes, reveals that a shared understanding exists between them and the groups that came before them. It further shows their attempt to merge the horizons of the contemporary world, though alien to the religion, with the world projected by the Texts of the religion. These groups took their preconceived ideas about the ontology of the Text, hermeneutics, history, culture, and epistemology and read them into Revelation. Whatever ran contrary to their preconceived ideas was incorrectly perceived as a direct conflict between reason and Revelation when, in reality, it is merely a conflict between reason and preconceived ideas. As such, the scholars of speculative theology (Mutakallimūn) were limited in their thought and ability to faithfully interpret Revelation.

If revelation, with its four measures of meaning, were to contradict or oppose human intellect it would not be a worthy form of guidance. Nevertheless, the scholars of speculative theology (Mutakallimūn) were heavily influenced by a Hellenistic culture which led them to believe that a conflict between reason and revelation was possible. The various groups within this school of thought then differed as to the manner in which they would deal with such conflicts. Some would adopt figurative interpretations when they perceived conflict, others would question the veracity of the particular Sacred Text in question whilst others still would outright reject it. However, none of them sought to clarify whether their initial understanding of the Sacred Text was correct, or whether their reasoning was true and shared by human beings in general and not tainted by preconceived ideas or philosophies alien to the religion.

The consequence of reserved, compromised submission to the Sacred Text is that a person may inadvertently make his intellect (‘Aql) take on the role of the Legislator (al-Hākim) in defining the religion. The opposite is also possible, whereby a person marginalises the role God-given intellect and reason has to play in religion. The consequence of this doctrine is that a person sees no legislative reasoning (‘Illal) behind the Sacred Texts and thereby reduces the scope for legal reasoning (Ijtihād).

The Ahl al-Sunnah hold a position in between these two evil extremes. They addressed both parties from a middle ground clarifying that revelation that relates to matters of the Unseen (Ghayb), theology (‘Aqīdah), as well as matters of worldly dealings (Mu‘āmalāt), are always in harmony with human intellect as Allāh revealed it for a people of intellect. The intellect recognises it to be sound and is ready to adhere when revelation legislates and commands it. Thus, the role of intellect is essentially one of recognising and submitting to the truth found in revelation. The verse of the Qur’anic chapter al-Mulk points to this when it relates the cries of the disbelievers as they enter the Hellfire: “If only we had really listened and used our intellect, we would not have been Companions of the Blaze”; only then do they realise the reason why God had granted them the senses and a discerning mind.

It is not the role of the intellect to legislate and formulate religious prescriptions independent of revelation. Regarding the case of the scholars (Mujtahidūn) who are able to exercise legal reasoning (Ijtihād) based on their intimate knowledge of the Sacred Texts and the legislative reasons (‘Illal) behind injunctions, the intellect plays a greater role here. However, it is still operating within the realm of revelation and not independently. Moreover, revelation itself commands that legal reasoning be applied in certain cases.

True intellectual liberation cannot come from following blindly the philosophies and ideas of one’s mind or from disbelieving nations, for every man errs and makes mistakes. As for the ideas, thoughts, and principles that are found in revelation, they come from a Divine, infallible source. Revelation therefore deserves to be placed over and above human intellect if any perceived conflict was found between the two sources. Furthermore, the Prophets came with knowledge which reason could not attain in and of itself, such as knowledge about the Creator, the Hereafter, the Unseen (Ghayb), and so on; never did they come with what reason considers impossible.

The reality is that reason is a prerequisite to all knowledge as with it we acquire knowledge; however, it is not sufficient by itself. It is only a faculty of the soul, a power like the power of vision in the eye. It works only when it receives light from faith (Īmān) and revelation, just as the eye sees only when it receives light. Therefore, true enlightenment does not come from submission to that which errs, may speak from conjecture, or is prone to external influences; rather it comes from submission to the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/theology/reason-revelation-a-false-dichotomy/feed/1023465The BIG Discussionhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-big-discussion-at-family-retreat-this-weekend/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-big-discussion-at-family-retreat-this-weekend/#commentsWed, 24 Aug 2016 16:50:16 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23225Over the years Islam21c has done more than 18 Big Discussions, benefitting tens of thousands of audience members and online viewers alike, by the grace of Allah. This weekend Islam21c will be hosting three of its flagship BIG Discussions, inshaAllah, at this year’s Family Retreat! Our expert panellists will be tackling the tough questions our ...

]]>Over the years Islam21c has done more than 18 Big Discussions, benefitting tens of thousands of audience members and online viewers alike, by the grace of Allah. This weekend Islam21c will be hosting three of its flagship BIG Discussions, inshaAllah, at this year’s Family Retreat! Our expert panellists will be tackling the tough questions our audience have on the following topics. If you have questions that will stimulate important discussions then let us know in the comments below!

BIG Discussion: Are “British Values” compatible with Islam?

The government’s confused definitions of ‘extremism’ revolve around an opposition to so-called ‘British values’, and as a result this phrase has been at the core of much propaganda and policy. A hegemonic discourse has emerged wherein Muslims’ opinions and values are interrogated to see how well they stack up next to this benchmark of some people’s interpretations of ‘British values’.

Instead of asking whether Islam is compatible with these interpretations of ‘British values’, this panel will ponder the question: are these ‘British values’ compatible with Islam?

This BIG Discussion invites an expert panel to look at the concepts of Democracy, Equality, Individual Liberty, Rule of Law and Mutual Respect & Tolerance of different faiths, and consider whether these are in fact ‘British values’ or universal values that Islam endorses, and if so, to what extent.

Importantly, this panel will also critique the cultural, social and political milieu from which this question of comparing ‘values’ has emerged; from the cultural imperialism of the colonial era to the neoconservatism of today.

BIG Discussion: Juggling Islamic values, morals and ethics

One of the ways in which Allah has made His divine guidance eminent over all others is its enlightening and nuanced approach to moral reasoning. In this BIG Discussion we host a unique one-on-one interview in which we delve deep into the mind of an accomplished Islamic jurist who, on a daily basis navigates the volatile terrain of implementing Islamic ethics in an ever-chaotic world.

We will discuss the difference between values, morality and ethics, and how Islam juggles them in day-to-day life with examples, especially when faced with moral dilemmas or contradictions. We will talk about the difference between doctrinal principles and their implementation in real life, the balance between dogmatism and pragmatism, as well as critically analysing the potential problems with the way Islamic fiqh has been codified and taught today.

Why are student “loans” allowed and not ‘Islamic’ mortgages?

Why are we so strict on prayer times but lenient on moonsighting?

How do we reconcile statements from the early Muslims with new realities?

Can I do something haram to gain a benefit?

Do I have to speak out against every evil I see?

We will probe the mind of the Islamic jurist for these questions and more, inshaAllah.

BIG Discussion: The story of divine Islamic values

Whenever one civilisation comes into contact with another, there is an exchange between two different ‘stories’. Values, morals and cultural norms form part of these stories, and without a genuine, balanced conversation, people cannot learn from one another.

The stories surrounding Muslims in the 21st century are inevitably coloured by the history of many other nations and peoples. Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth provided a psychiatric analysis of the dehumanising effects of colonisation on the colonisers and the colonised, and our expert panel will unwrap the relevance of this analysis and others to the 21st century Muslim experience.

This BIG Discussion panel will also look further back beyond colonialism into earlier historical examples of when Muslims came into contact with unfamiliar values and influences, and the plethora of responses from within the ummah and without, and the impact on Muslim thinking.

In this BIG Discussion an expert panel will discuss where values come from, how we discover them, the relationship between values, morals and ethics, and much more.

Keep visiting Islam21c or subscribe to our mailing list to keep updated with our BIG Discussions. Visit http://www.familyretreat.co.uk/ to book for this weekend now.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/the-big-discussion-at-family-retreat-this-weekend/feed/123225Is Life Just a Game?https://www.islam21c.com/theology/is-life-just-a-game/
https://www.islam21c.com/theology/is-life-just-a-game/#commentsMon, 15 Aug 2016 11:25:44 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=23169Articulating a compassionate and intelligent case for Islam in a post-secular society is quite difficult. Due to an increase in materialism, the value of religion has diminished. One way of starting a conversation is to get people thinking about the implications of their ideas about man, life and the universe. Once it can be shown ...

]]>Articulating a compassionate and intelligent case for Islam in a post-secular society is quite difficult. Due to an increase in materialism, the value of religion has diminished. One way of starting a conversation is to get people thinking about the implications of their ideas about man, life and the universe. Once it can be shown that there are some absurd consequences and unpalatable logical implications, it can create fertile ground to have rational discussions about why Islam is true.

A popular view about life is that it is “just a game”. We have one life (YOLO) and we should make the most of it. However, is life just a game? This belief ignores or denies the supernatural and any form of Divine accountability. Why would there be? When you play a game you either win or lose, and then you move on to the next game, and then you eventually die. The formula is simple; believing life is just a game equals no ultimate purpose and value. Not only does it make life ludicrous but it also represents a very bleak outlook on our existence. As this article is going to explain, this conclusion is a result of thinking rationally and logically about the implications of thinking that life is just for frivolous play.

“And We created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, for mere play.”

The Qur’an, Chapter 44, Verse 38

No Purpose

Is it reasonable to believe? To help us try and answer this question, let us take the following into consideration:

You are probably reading this article sitting on your chair, and wearing some clothes. Have you ever asked yourself the question: for what purpose? Why are you wearing the clothes, and what purpose does the chair have? The answers to these questions are obvious. The chair’s purpose is to allow us to sit down by supporting our weight, and our clothes fulfil the purpose of keeping us warm, hiding our nakedness, and of course making us look good. Our clothes and the chair are lifeless objects with no emotional and mental abilities, and we attribute purpose to these. Yet, some of us do not believe we have a purpose for our own existence. Naturally, this seems absurd and counter intuitive.

Having a purpose for our lives implies that there is a reason for our existence, in other words some kind of intention and objective. Without a purpose we have no reason to exist, and we do not really have a deep, profound meaning for our lives. This is the implication of believing life is just a game. If we take the logical conclusion of this indifferent view on our existence, we are essentially on a sinking ship. This metaphorical ship is our planet, because according to scientists this planet is heading towards its inevitable demise, and will suffer what they call a “heat death”, where the Sun will eventually destroy the earth.[1] Therefore, if this ship is going to sink, then what is the point of reshuffling the deck chairs or giving a glass of milk to the old lady? The Qur’an represents humanity’s intuitive stance on this issue,

“Our Lord! You have not created all this without purpose”

The Qur’an, Chapter 3, Verse 90

Islam’s view on the purpose of our lives is empowering. It elevates our existence from being a mere product of matter and time, to recognising us as conscious beings that freely choose to have a relationship with the One that created us. Under the belief that life is just a game, there is no ultimate purpose for our existence. We are just based on blind, random, non-rational, physical processes.

And they say, “There is none but our worldly life, and we will not be resurrected.” If you could but see when they will be made to stand before their Lord. He will say, “Is this not the truth?” They will say, “Yes, by our Lord.” He will [then] say, “So taste the punishment because you used to disbelieve.”

The Qur’an, Chapter 6, Verses 29 to 30

No Value

What is the difference between a human and a chocolate bunny? This is a serious question. According to the belief that life is just a game with no afterlife, everything that exists is essentially a rearrangement of matter. Everything is a result of prior physical causes and processes.

If this is true, then does it really matter?

If I were to pick up a hammer, smash a chocolate bunny, and then I did the same to myself, according to this perspective there would be no real difference. The pieces of chocolate and the pieces of my skull would just be rearrangements of the same stuff; cold, lifeless matter.

The typical response to this argument includes the following statements: “we have feelings”, “we are alive”, “we feel pain”, “we have an identity” and “we’re human!” These responses are quite intuitive, but not all intuitions are true. According to this perspective, these responses are just neuro-chemical occurrences in one’s brain. In reality, everything we feel, say or do can be reduced to the basic constituents of matter. Therefore, this sentimentalism is unjustified if one adopts this worldview, because everything, including feelings, emotions or even the sense of value, is just based on matter and cold physical processes and causes.

Coming back to our original question: what is the difference between a human being and a chocolate bunny? The answer according to the life is just a game perspective; there is no real difference. Any difference is just an illusion – there is no ultimate value. If everything is based on matter and prior physical causes and processes, then nothing has real value. Unless, of course, one argues that what matters is matter itself. Even if that were true, how could we appreciate the difference between one arrangement of matter and another? Could one argue that the more complex something is the more value it has? But why would that be of any value? Remember, nothing has been purposefully designed or created if everything is the result of cold, random and non-conscious physical processes and causes.

From an Islamic perspective, we have ultimate value because God has placed an innate disposition within us to acknowledge some fundamental moral and ethical truths. This disposition is called the fiṭrah in Islamic thought. Another reason we can claim ultimate value is because God created us with a profound purpose, and preferred us to most of His creation. We have value because the One who created us has given us value.

“Now, indeed, We have conferred dignity on the children of Adam…and favoured them far above most of Our creation.”

The Qur’an, Chapter 17, Verse 70

Islam values the good and those who accept the truth. It contrasts those who obey God and thereby do good, and those who are defiantly disobedient, and thereby do evil,

“Then is one who was a believer like one who was defiantly disobedient? They are not equal.”

The Qur’an, Chapter, 32, Verse 18

Since believing that life is just a game ignores or denies the Hereafter and any form of Divine justice, then it rewards the criminal and the peacemaker with the same ends: death. We all meet the same fate, so what ultimate value does the life of Hitler or the life of Martin Luther King Jr. really have? If their ends are the same, then what real value does this view give us? Not much at all.

However, in Islam, the ultimate end of those who are compassionate, honest, just, kind and forgiving is contrasted with the end of those who persist with their evil. The abode of the good is eternal bliss, and the abode of the evil is Divine alienation and eternal torment.

“And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from God and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion?”

The Qur’an, Chapter 57, Verse 20

In Islam we have value. Under the view that life is just a game, any sense of value cannot be rationally justified except as an illusion in our heads.

Conclusion

Once you have read this article you will see that all of the profound questions that we as human beings have about our existence are answered in the Qur’an. God didn’t create the universe and everything in it only to leave us all to our own devices. Our Creator cares about us, and it is out of His mercy that He sent down the Qur’an as guidance.

To conclude, believing that life is just a game cannot provide profound answers for our existence, and therefore real happiness can never be achieved. When we stop treating life like a game and become God-conscious, we free ourselves and find ourselves. Only then can we achieve true happiness both in this life and the next [2]:

“Truly it is in the remembrance of God that hearts find peace.”

The Qur’an, Chapter 13, Verse 28

If this has created some interest and motivated you to want to talk about this topic to your brothers and sisters in humanity, then join us on the 20th August 2016 for World Dawah Mission. To find out more, please visit: http://www.worlddawahmission.com/